Talk:Oksana Baiul

Untitled

http://www.webwinds.com/womenskate/oksana77432.jpg

I don't recall Baiul ever being called "the greatest female skater of all time" or "the greatest artistic skater". --Fang Aili 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

AntonioConstantine: No offense Fang, but you must be really stupid? If someone wins 1st Place in both World Skate Championships and 1st place in the Olympics within the same year, for that 2 years or so if no one has accomplished that goal thereof, then YES that person is the best female skater of all time from the point of view of those two years.

I thought her maternal grandmother was dead.

AntonioConstantine, I ask you to mind WP:CIVIL. The sentence I was refering to was, "Following her win at the 1994 Winter Olympics, Baiul was called the greatest female skater of all time by many skating commentators and critics." (this was sometime back in February.) The key words are was called. By who? I was asking for a source for this statement. And no, just because someone wins the worlds and the olympics does not make that person "the greatest female skater of all time". --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fang. Yet again, I will re-iterate the point being. A World Olympic event is to determine who is the best at that moment. It does not have to be sourced. The event speaks for itself. Atheletes go through grueling training and competition all for what? A medallion only? No for the title of the best. Hence in 1994 Baiul is the greatest skater of all time :) agreed?

1) No, winning Olympic gold only proves that competitor was the best for that particular competition. Not for that year, much less "for all time." Sarah Hughes won in 2002 because she delivered when Slutaskaya and Kwan didn't, but no one would ever say overall she's better than those two--she was simply the best for that competition, prestigious as it is. How can someone be the "greatest skater of all time" for just 1994? Do you not see that's a contradiction in terms?

2) In addition, there has never been any one skater deemed the greatest of all time, much less a teenager whose career has barely begun.

3) "World Olympic" is contradictory. World Championships and the Olympic Games are two completely separate competitions.

4) And yes, everything on Wikipedia has to be sourced. If you want to argue your point, go to a skating forum. 68.161.128.140 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an Oksana Baiul fan site

I don't know what the heck happened to this article, but its tone is now completely non-encyclopedic. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Had a look at the article Fang and it looked okay to me. Yes, the writer expressed an opinion but their points were well argued and well made. The article you put back in place is just as opinionated (almost an Anti Oksana Baiul artilce) as the one you removed. Unlike the one you removed however, the opinions expressed are not supported - almost baseless assertions. I have therefore put the new article back (its removal is vandalism). If you feel that there is a problem with the article, then you should edit it (not remove it) in a manner which is fair and balanced (being neither an overly pro or anti subject account of the person in question). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs) .

Reformatted to make discussion flow easier to follow. No comments edited. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretending you are another user will fool no one. Also, please assume good faith and do not call my edits vandalism. This version is full of unsubstatiated opinions and is not encyclopedic. If you wish the article to be "fair and balanced", it cannot contain statements like, "Quad and triple jumps are all very well but if the rest of package is a load of rubbish, then what is the point of watching?" I am reverting the article to its NPOV version. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

From manutdforever: I spent about an hour making a contribution to this page last night adding a substantial amount of new content only to see the original which contains far less content put back. Most of the content from the original format which has been put back in place plus the content contributed by 7g7em7ini was preserved (about 95%). Are people like myself allowed to make a contribution? What is it about this original version which seems to have been reinstated numerous times (removing contributions from several sources in the process) that is so good that nobody else can have a look in? The extra content I added I am sure others would have appreciated. As it was by and large factual information, there was nothing controversial about it whatsoever. What is the point of bothering? I thought anybody was allowed to contribute. I am new to Wikipedia and my experience has been totally spoilt by this. I have put my page back. I would be grateful if it could be left up for others to assess and add to/amend as they see fit. I note from the above discussion and the history that a Fang Ali and a 7g7em7ini had alternate versions of the page. I went out of my way to preserve 95% of both versions and I feel that my version is a good compromise between the two. So come on Fang Ali and 7g7em7ini, let others have a look in like myself!!! Don't just go and put back versions which contain far less detailed factual information. You don't own the page! Others, please provide us with your coments. What do you think? Please make your own contributions to the page. Nobody has a monopoly on it. As Wikipedia editorial policy states, the more people contribute the better it will be. It should not just be limited to just one or two people who believe that there contribution should be the one and only one. As for my own contribution, I have endeavoured to keep it bias/opinion free. If anybody believes that there is an element which does not meet this criteria, then please amend it. Please do not do what the last person did and go and remove the whole lot and degrade the page in the process. As I am sure the vast majority of people would agree, that is just an abuse of process. If the page is completely removed again, then quite frankly I shall not bother with Wikipedia again. For me, it will have lost its status as an encyclopedia which anyone can contribute to and become nothing more than a kind of newspaper where a minority of diehard contributors have a monopoly on editorial control.

These edits were a violation of WP:POV and WP:VERIFY. Please review these policies. Everything on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and be verifiable. Statements akin to "Oksana Baiul was the best skater ever" are not neutral, encyclopedic, and certainly are not verifiable. You will not be able to push your point of view here, and any editor who understands what Wikipedia is will support me on this point. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From: manutdforever: All and sundry take note. Fang Ali believes that he has a monopoly on the page. How sad. I give up and will not be contributing to Wikipedia again. It is a waste of my time. What is the point when one is up against a tiny number of diehard editors who monopolise it. Look at the content of Fang Ali's article and note the bias. Look at AntonioConstantines views on Fang Ali's contributions above. They speak for themselves. Please note that my contribution did not say "Oksana Baiul was the best skater ever". It said that it is the opinion of some that she was. For the actual wording, please use the comparison tool to compare my version with the current version. Neutral observers will note that my contribution was very fair and balanced. Goodbye. As I said, my time will be better spent elsewhere. Not on this site.

Dear manutdforever, don't be put by this experience. This kind of thing is very rare. In this particular instance, you should bring the matter to the attention of Wikipedia through there complaints/resolution process. There decision is binding. I think given the history of the matter and whats been going on that they would rule in your favour. Henry

Complaint

Will bring it myself when I get the time. Too busy with work at the moment to make the effort. I was the person who compiled the original alternate article which I note manutdforever added to considerably. I note manutdforever said that Baiul rediscovered her Jewish heritage from her paternal grandmother whereas Fang Aili (the all knowing one who believes he has a divine right to the article!!) says it was her maternal grandmother. Does anyone know who is correct? I know one of them died when Baiul was 10. 7g7em7ini

You can complain to whoever if you wish, but I can guarantee you that established editors here will tell you the same thing: Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. The versions I have reverted have been in that interest. I do not know if it was her paternal or maternal grandmother, and I encourage anyone to add/confirm the information with proper citations, and without adding biased opinions like "Oksana Baiul is the best skater of all time". --Fang Aili ^talk 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It was her paternal grandmother whom she met in 2003. Stating that Kerrigan delivered a almost clean skate and Baiul made mistakes at the olympics are subjective statements (i.e. opinion related) and therefore inconsistent with a NPOV. That is why I removed the remarks. If your going to remove other peoples contributions on the grounds of bias inconsistent with a NPOV, then you must ensure that your own contributions are not equally biased and subject to the same kind of criticism. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. Henry

Thanks for correcting the grandmother point. Yes, thank you for reminding me about NPOV; it is always something to keep in mind. However I disagree that the section you removed is an opinion; it is a fact that Kerrigan skated a "clean skate", that is, she landed all her jumps cleanly and was otherwise error-free, whereas Baiul two-footed one landing (and had another small mistake, but I don't recall exactly what it was). It is also a fact that the outcome was controversial. I think it's encyclopedic to at least note the controversy. I'll try to find some sources. Thanks for showing an interest in the article. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kerrigan did make mistakes. Her first jump was to be a triple flip, and she doubled it. She slipped off the entry edge of her double axle jump and on her tripel lutz jump she used the WRONG entry edge to enter the jump---it's known as a "flutz" in skating. This was a .3 technical deduction under the rules in place at the time. Again on her triple lutz double-toe combination jump kerrigan again used the wrong entry edge into the move. This meant she technically could not control her edges her skating was not precise. Technically her spins travelled there were .02 deduction for these errors too. However just because these errors went unreported in America doesn't mean these were not so. The judges transcripts list them. Understand also that under the rules in place at the time Judges did not have to take ANY technical deductions from either skater during the free skate. They WERE OBLIGATED to take mandatory artistic deductions during the artistic freeskate. U.S TV went out of its way to hide this VERY IMPORTANT rule of figureskating judging. Nancy knew the rules she WASN'T CLEAN OR FLAWLESS in her skating. Technically the skills of Baiul's spirals and spins were COMPLEX where kerrigan's were simple and poorly executed. Swedish referee Britta Lindgren remarked. "Nancy had only one good spiral and the triple-triple jump combination was the higlight of her program and that was it." The spins and spirals of Oksana were better her triple lutz jump was higher, cleaner, stronger." Some of the judges found that Baiul gave a more solid technical and artistic interpretation. All which allowed her to edge Kerrigan out of the gold. These judges wrote out their justifications when under questioning at a hearing held at the behest of the Kerrigan sponsors, supporters, IOC+ and U.S media.Request the transcript from the ISU. Obtain a copy of the International skating Rules for 1994.

Few people understand that there were 8 required artistic elements to be judged during the free skate back then. The 8 being 1. Speed and power, 2., Gliding grace or "flow" 3. use of edges (this measure balance skills and precision), 4. Use of music 5. foot work or step sequence it must be intricate 6. body positions taken in spins, spirals etc. 7. Choreography 8. utilization of the ice surface. (how much ice does the skater cover?) Artistic marks are the tie-breakers. Understand that ice skating looks differently on TV than live in the arena. Television mutes some performances, edits them and waters them down while it appears to enhance others. TV coverage of skating did not capture or record fully what the judges and live audiences saw. Oksana Baiul was well noted for the speed,sheer power of her triple jumps and the lightness of her landings at the time. The Olympic Bronze medalist from China, Chen Lu stated "I think there is a big difference between the gold medalist and the silver medalist." Remember this young lady witnessed the performances live. Also to quote sports writer Tony Kornheiser who was observing the event live rinkside. "Baiul's jumps look like pershing missiles being launched." Five judges noted her speed as superior to the field. U.S Commentator Scott Hamiliton correctly stated, Oksana Baiul has no weaknesses to her skating. He meant every area of her programs was strong and every skill difficult and she skated without serious deductions. 5 Judges stated Nancy's freeskate program was "front loaded' which meant the difficulty was only in one area of the program "Jumps" Olympic Winning freeskating programs needed to be balanced to win in those days. It meant spirals, spins, choreography and step sequences all needed to be complex. Judges were grading for overall composition and they were looking to reward the skater with the "best all-around skills as a skater" like in gymnastics with the selection of the "all-around champion." The winning skater must be strongest in SEVERAL OR EVERY area of skating or AT LEAST--STRONGER than their rivals. Katarina Witt quoted, "Oksana is a perfect skater." meaning she had the strongest overall package of TECHNCIAL AND PRESENTATION Skills or the fewest weaknesses whichever you prefer.

The "controversy" was all media generated. This also happened because of the way biased sources like USFSA Kerrigan's national skating federation and Kerrigan's family, coaches, friends, sponsors and supporters were all allowed to manipulate the media for their own personal gain and purposes. Elevating Nancy to cash in on whatever they invested. Crititcal thinkning and deductive reasoning are also called into use. Just because information appears in the media doesnot neccessarily make it true or infallible as a source of credulity.

• NOTE: There were NO broadcasts of the ISU JUDGES who graded Baiul ahead of Kerriga explaining their decisions AND WHY BAIUL'S SKATING WAS STRONGER. Pro Kerrigan reporters in the media were simply stating the judges were crooked and corrupt without ANY substantied PROOF. A press conference is standard procedure after every Olympic competition. Yet it was edited out in the 1994 winter Olympics U.S broadcast. But it was carried in Canada and the rest of the world. No other nation saw the need to delete this. NObody from Oksana Baiul's camp or national skating federation were allowed to explain THE STRENGTHS of Baiul's skating in the U.S coverage of the event. Americans were fed only the fixed view of people who supported Kerrigan. Which is why outside of U.S the view exists rightly that Baiul won outright without controversy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.154.34 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fang, thank you for your comments. I will locate my video of the event and have a look at the two performances. Like you, its been a while since I last saw it. Kind regards, Henry

Oksana's alcohol problems

I am surprised that there is nothing about Oksana's alcohol problems. She was arrested for a DUI that was eventually dismissed after she completed alcohol educatiion program as part of her probation. And then later she went to alcohol rehab as well. She was under 21 both times. She appeared to have a lot of problems around this time. Mylittlezach (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Early life and "being Jewish"

I've just read the begining of the article and I hope there are people, who will find time to improve it. 1. The chapter (section) entitled "Early life" seems to take Baiul up to the age of 35 – is that still "early"? 2. The subtitle (subsection) "Religious views" seems to be about ancestry, not religion. There also seems to be a lack of distinction between Jewish nationality and Judaism. The statement that Baiul was "brought up as Russian Orthodox" is not supported by any sources other than that of an article in an American Jewish magazine published 15 years or so after the Soviet Union was dissolved. It seems sensible to find other sources in support of this, as it was not obvious to be brought up in any religious beliefs in the Soviet Union, in which Baiul lived for the first 14 years of her life. PS. Perhaps a comment on the discussion above: keep in mind, Wikipedia is for readers – not editors. Król Maciuś II (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)